Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

CVG has up a piece noting the fact that not much about Zelda games have changed since the move to 3D. Chalk that up to the greatness of Ocarina of Time if you will, but the same mirror moving, fire-arrow switch activating puzzles have been in the last several titles. Is it time for some kind of radical change to the equation? "People generally don't like to accept change. But change doesn't always spell disaster. Final Fantasy introduces a totally new cast, setting and theme with each sequel and continues to please fans. Resident Evil 4 completely revolutionised Capcom's horror series and is now viewed as one of the best games ever made ... We still totally adore Zelda but eventually the appeal will tire and the series risks bombing. Nintendo needs to take the bold step and inject something totally new into Zelda. We're not talking about a couple of new items, or a new location - that's been done. We mean a significant change that affects the whole structure and gameplay."

What? Talk about naive. Zelda has NEVER been an RPG and has ALWAYS been an action adventure. Each Zelda brings a new gameplay element to the table, usually in the form of a new item, than allows the creation of new kinds of puzzles. This new item or gameplay enhancement is almost always is in the title of the game, or is at least alluded to in the title. That said, I have not played Twilight Princess, so I can't speak to its innovations, if any. Perhaps the series is (momentarily) stuck in a rut of nostalgi

Beyond marketing hype, what exactly makes a Zelda game an RPG? I honestly don't get it. Maybe I'm just old fashioned having grown up on pen-and-paper RPGs, and CRPGs like Wizardry and Ultima. Every game in the Zelda series are almost completely linear, there is usually only one way to solve any problem, there is almost no way to customize the game or make your experience any different than another player's. There is only one player character, a character who is virtually identical across all games, with no customization, no leveling, no classes, no tactics, no way to influence the story, no characters that react meaningfully to the different ways you play, and not really any other RPG trappings except a Tolkien-esque universe. Yes, Zelda II had some leveling, making it the most RPG-like, but that represents one small feature in one aberration of a game out of something like fifteen in the series. I'm sorry, a handful of hearts does not an RPG make. Zelda is no more an RPG than the three lives of Pac-Man are a statement on reincarnation and corporate capitalism. As far as I can tell the Zelda series is a classic action adventure in almost every possible way, completely in the vein of the grand-daddy of them all "Adventure" for the Atari VCS. You collect specific objects, or perform specific tasks, to overcome a specific series of obstacles, while the game funnels you toward the end. Your options are extremely limited, and almost everything that can be done in the game is utterly compulsory in order to finish it. In other words, Zelda is a particularly inflexible adventure game with many exciting and varied real-time action elements -- and I love Zelda for it. Don't ever change, Zelda!

What Nintendo has chosen to do with the Zelda series has seemed to be to evolve it rather than do anything revolutionary. Twilight Princess has the same basic features as Ocarina of Time, for certain. It's very comfortable to the new fans. The game introduces several new and very interesting items that remarkably change the way the game plays as the game progresses, though. Things like the dual-hookshot (cla

Zelda 2 was an RPG. You gained experience points, assigned them to certain stats. Granted, there were only 3 stats and 8 magical spells, but nevertheless...

Of course it was also a platform game of sorts. And it was a part of Nintendo's "Adventure" game series, back when they tried to put all their games into an official Nintendo-approved genre. Remember the "Education" series? Had all of 2 games, I think.

Zelda 2 was pseudo-RPG. only on the most vague definition of RPG does it match. And if you're into table-top RPG these CRPGs are often nothing like a real RPG.

I think most of the Zelda games are Adventure games. nothing wrong with that, I think the title fits. You certainly go on a pretty amazing adventure in a zelda game. Lots of exploring and searching and stabbing and questing.

What? Talk about naive. Zelda has NEVER been an RPG and has ALWAYS been an action adventure.

Apparently you never played Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link [rpgamer.com], which, despite the ironic name, is the only game in the series to be an RPG, featuring experience and levelling. Given that it's that early in the series though, that's definite precedent. Of course, it was still an action/RPG, so no menu battles please.:)

A "true" RPG features leveling up, often experience, and (though theoretically possible to do without) battles. The name by itself though, role-playing game, implies an epic adventure. Consider the name of the hero, Link. Link was named that because he is your "link" to the game (one of Miyamoto's brilliant but simple concepts). You name Link, and you control Link, though every action and movment. Unlike Final Fantasy, Link will never do anything that you don't tell him to (at least nothing that would affec

Zelda has had many different looks and styles of game play, Link to the Past being one of my favorites, but as the article points out, since going 3d the games have been basically the same. They feel more like a skinned version of Ocarina then a whole new game. As much as I love Zelda, it is starting to get a little repetitive. So a fresh gameplay system with a totally new way to interact with the land of Hyrule, might not be such a bad idea.and to the parent:

I remember as a young lad LOATHING the second zelda game, and for the longest time it was the only one I hadn't beaten. But when i got the disc for the GC with the first two games on it, I decided that it was time i beat it just so i could say i had beat them all. It quickly became one of my favorites.

People hated Zelda 2 because it wasn't top-down like the original. Nintendo went back to top-down with the SNES and Gameboy versions and the fanboys were happy. Then they went 3D. Your beloved top-down forma

Is is really the "fans coming back" that Nintendo is after? I would assume they are going after the younger crowd, who probably have not played more than 1 zelda release before (if ever), so it's not the same old stuff in their eyes.

Besides, Zelda is NOT FF, and it's NOT Resident Evil. It's in a class of it's own, and imho should not be changed because people want it to be more like WoW or something.

Twilight Princess was, IMO, the best game in the series, because instead of concentrating souly on new gameplay elements, they actually gave the game a SOUL. In fact sometimes it felt like they transplanted it directly from the Final Fantasy series, which could explain the lack of soul in FF12 (as good as that game was). Every game is evolutionary, and they try expanding on a new area... this one was in story telling and character portrayal, and they get an A+ on this one. Wind Waker tried to experiment with a number of new gameplay elements, and while I applaud them on that, their new efforts were more like a B-.

To me, this sounds like an artical written by a disgruntled gamer who wasn't able to see TP for what it truly was, and while I respect his opinion, its hardly a reason for a call to arms. Does the series need an overhaul? After how good TP was... absolutely not.

TP was an evolutionary step in terms of gameplay, for the series. It added a few new elements (of which it did very well, I might add), but its main concentration layed elsewhere. The gameplay fanatics can probably look forward to Phantom Hourglass and the next Wii Zelda title for a boost in gameplay elements.

I pretty much agree with you. Twilight Princess probably is one of the best 3D Zeldas, but now I'm playing Okami, and I honestly think that it is a better game. Okami was obviously inspired by the Zelda series, some may say cloned, but it does some things better than Zelda (and some things worse). Anyways, the genius thing about Okami is the brush strokes you use to fight enemies or overcome obstacles instead of the typical Zelda tool chest of items. This actually makes the game much more seamless in my

I loved Okami. Just for the record, my top 3 games of 2006 were Twilight Princess, Okami and Tales of the Abyss (with FF12 coming in a distant 4th). That said, Okami had some huge flaws. It's battle system was incredibly uninspired, repetitive, and boring. The final few boss battles FINALLY become interesting, but most of is pretty blah. Thankfully, the concentration on battles was so minor that it didn't really bring down the game... but if you're not going to have decent battles, why have them at all? The

If you played the game for an hour and a half, then I can totally understand. But... AN HOUR AND A HALF???? The game is about 70+ hours! In dramatic narrative, usually writers suggest that about 1/3rd be exposition. In epic form, such as Zelda... there's usually multipul rising actions, so the exposition should probably be more like the first 1/6th. In a 70 hour game, that's about 12 hours. Zelda: TP moves into the action in about 3.

In some works, the whole work is meant to have consistantly riviting material. But in other works, the entire work is meant to lead up to a few key, extraordinary moments. Zelda: TP is one of those works. There is a moment about 4 hours in that is truly disturbing, one at about 18 where I wanted to cry. These moments were so incredible that they took hours to lead up to, and when the game is over, all that matters is those specific key points, and they made the game, IMO, the best game I've ever played (and I've played dozens of long-form titles).

Some games that start out with a BANG are great... like FF7, but probably the best start out quiet and subtle, and build into amazing things, like FF8 or Tales of the Abyss. Zelda falls into that category, in fact... Zelda typically falls into that catagory, it's just that TP is about twice the length of any other zelda, so its exposition NEEDS to be about twice as long to have the correct balance.

I understand your points, but I don't agree with them for an adventure game (maybe a dialogue-driven movie, though). I want to be wowed in some way early (and that could be by amazing graphics, a thrilling fight, a great cut-scene, etc...). Then I will put up with an enormous amount of tedium/exposition to get to the rest of the good stuff. Deus Ex is a great example of a game with a relatively complex story that gets you involved right away. Within 5 minutes, I was storming the Statue of Liberty and ki

What are you talking about? My friend just had me start a game of Deus Ex the other day... and for the fist 45 minutes, I was in training rooms learning how to play the game. Sure, the normal campaign may start right off... but it doesn't count because I couldn't have done it without knowing the controls.Needless to say, I was DISGUSTED by Dues Ex's choice of tacking on a training section on the beginning. A game is a learning process, part of the reason for playing the game is to learn how to play the game

Uh, I just learned how to play Deus Ex in the first level. You can skip the training level by just starting a new game, and saying "no" when they ask you whether you want to do the training.I would assume that most people did the same thing. Of course, I'd played System Shock 2, so the inventory system was already familiar to me. Beyond that, what's so hard about just learning that game as you go? I could see maybe a quick glance at the keymap in the options menu to see which button does what, but 45 mi

I don't have a PC right now, so no. But I'm ordering a Mac Pro... so possibly. But I've already got a game of Ar Tonelico going, and I'd like to get around to playing Valkarie Profile 2 SOMEDAY, so it might be a bit. I'm a little concerned though. I usually HATE (and I mean HATE) non-linear RPGs. But I've heard enough interesting things about this one, that I might give it a shot.

Deus Ex isn't really an RPG, and anyway, it's only non-linear by FPS standards, not in a Morrowind sort of way. You can't stop the main "quest" (if you want to call it that) and decide to become a farmer, or spend hours hunting a certain type of animal, or crap like that. There are occasionally optional things to do, or more than one way to get to a place, or a person who will die if you didn't do something earlier, but you're pretty much always going in one general direction, plot-wise.

Sure, but I'm just saying, it's not exactly as if Deus Ex is a pinnical of starting out with a "bang" if the game needs a plotless training section (I would have been completely lost starting out without it, the controls are very different from what I'm used to), I'd like for a game to go along and teach me as I go along.That doesn't mean that the game can't start out with a bang... FF7 does this, but the gameplay is still incredibly simple at the beginning. Not that I'm holding up FF7 to be a pinnical of a

Exactly.And lets face it, all gameplay changes are gimmicks. There are various ways of getting people focused on a task, one is to entice them by having fun toys to play around with, but a more prolonged and rewarding exploit is to have them rivitted to characters and story elements.

Games have gotten pretty damn good with gameplay elements, it's what they do best, maybe it's time to pull back a little and work on the quality of character portrayal and dialog? I think the designers of Twilight Princess felt

I completely disagree. If you add voices it changes the characters.Take for example Link, he got a new voice actor for Twilight princess. The new guy is mostly known for playing Dearka elsman from Gundam SEED Destiny, the old ne was mostly known for Guy from Gaogaigar. The two characters are complete opposites and I personaly felt Link was diffeent in feel because of his voice more than the way he acted.

Apply this to the entire game but removing Japanese voices to English, it'll completely change the world

Bullshit. People seem to approach voice-acting as if it's simply the next step in gaming... as if it is inherently superior, and those who fail to do so are akin to developers who failed to move to creating 16-bit games after the SNES was released.

No. Voice acting is an aesthetic decision, and greatly alters the feel of the game. Some games definitely benefit from voice acting, but others call for a little more abstraction, and thus voice-acting can chip away at their charm, no matter the quality. Zelda definitely falls into that catagory.

Notice that Zelda already has plenty of voice actin. But in this case, "voice acting" isn't about content but expression of emotion. Instead of actually speaking content, the characters make noises that reflect their current state of mind. This splits up the emotion of the voice from the dry content. It is part of Zelda's greater abstraction, which I feel is key to its overall charm. Traditional voice acting would completely distroy that.

IE: Voice acting is an aesthetic decision on the part of the creators. It is not "missing", it was not included because the creators feel (as I feel) that it would partially destroy the games' charm, moving it toward the realm of cinema rather than the animated storybook quality they wish to portray.

Parent is spot on.I prefer subtitled anime over dubs because the voice actors communicate the emotion properly as I read the subtitles. Dubs are usually done by whoever was willing to take the job for the least amount of money, and the quality of the acting reflects that.

The actual words being said by the Japanese voice actors is pure gibberish to me, just like the gibberish I hear from Midna.

They got the important part of the voice, the tone. I am fine with reading the words. Hell, Simlish communicates pre

Admittedly, most (english) anime dubs are bad. But not all - I thought 'Trigun' and 'Noir' were both decent dubs. I still think a new Zelda would benefit from good voice acting. For purists (and the hearing impaired), they could provide the option of switching to text.

Do you really think Miyamoto-san would permit Zelda to be released (in any language) with BAD voice acting?

Well, that's one way of looking at it. And I'd agree for all previous games in the series, and quite a bit of anime (the real reason why I think most people prefer the Japanese, because they don't have to think about how utterly contrived the dialog sounds). But I would completely disagree with TP. TP was the first game in the series to actually have GREAT writing (for video games, at least). I'm talking almost on par with the Tales series (which I consider to have some of the best writing in gaming).I thin

I just think that's flat-out wrong. It's an aesthetic choice. I'm a composer, myself, I've arranged music for various ensembles because the style of music fit the instrumentation. Basically what you're saying is that any time I don't arrange for full orchestra, I'm living on the cheap. Sometimes all I really want is piano, bass, and drums, though, because that's what the music calls for.

Come on, man, let's call a spade a spade.

You really think I'm just saying this to defend Nintendo? Fuck you, man. You have

I personally agree, with Twilight Princess, even though Midna talked random nonesense, I found the nonesense made her a much more endearing character than the others where at most you got some random sound. It doesn't mean that Link has to stop being silent or anything, that probably would be a holy cow too much for the fans, although I do somethimes find the whole "blank slate" bit a little annoying as well.I also sortof agree with the article, recycling the same themes gets annoying, some more variety wou

Twilight Princess was great, but isn't it past time to deprecate text-only dialog.

It's harder to screw up a game with text-only dialog than it is to screw up one with voice acting because of the choice of a flat and talentless voice actor or two (or ten). I can think of a few games that I've found seriously hurt by voice acting -- the first Grandia game and Shenmue immediately come to mind.

(Good lord was Shenmue's voice acting terrible. It was like a dry read by tone-deaf people.)

Personally, I hate voice acting in most games...Because of the costs associated with voice acting you tend to have very limited dialogue which ends up becoming repetative rapidly, and creates a far more static world. With a text based game you can have every character in the game have several unique things to say at any given time and (as a player finishes objectives) have what they change through out the game. Your development team of (roughly) 6 dialogue writers can quickly fill a town setting with conte

I hate voice acting. It seems to break immersion for me, rather than keeping me in the game. Plus, it takes too long in dialogue-heavy games; much faster to scroll through text. I guess games seem to me like interactive storybooks, not movies. Plus, Zelda's quasi-speech is endearing.

I love them, but they need to stop relying on the fire temple/water temple/wind temple/earth temple formula. The puzzles are usually good, but they get repetitive when I play them over and over in different games.

Alternate answer: Heck, yes Zelda needs an "overhaul" if she looks like this [fab1.net].

Am I the only person here who grew up associating the name Zelda with the Terrahawks baddie and not some Nintendo character? Particularly as I wasn't even aware that "Zelda" was a real name at the time. Anyway, the two characters seem like chalk and cheese...

All great games eventually get made into a franchise that milks the brand for all it's worth. Take Madden, Super Mario, or even Zelda for example. Game companies exist to make themselves rich, and those games have a proven formula for success. Why would they tamper with that?

I've been saying this for years! Zelda's formula has gotten old in 3D. Especially the combat. Despite enjoying Twilight Princess a lot (a huge surprise to me) they really need to do a full refresh of the formula.

The Wii controls helped keep the combat feeling fresh, where the GameCube falls flat. But the advancements other games have made in dynamic since the release of Ocarina just leave the series feeling like something of a dinosaur.

With their vast resources (even before DS and Wii started printing money) and huge talent pool I except more from Nintendo. I seem to remember Miyamoto saying that TP would be the last Zelda game "as we know it." So hopefully that's a sign of big things to come.

The Wii controls helped keep the combat feeling fresh, where the GameCube falls flat. But the advancements other games have made in dynamic since the release of Ocarina just leave the series feeling like something of a dinosaur.

The Wii controls on Twilight Princess are a pointer for the way forward. Some parts worked really well - I could never go back to aiming the bow or the hookshot with an analogue stick. Some didn't - shield thrust was misread as spin attack far too often. While it was well done, it

It's not like Zelda hasn't changed before. I mean, the jump from 2D to 3D was fairly dramatic. And seriously, we've all seen where being formulaic gets you; Just look at the movie industry. That's the type of rut that I'd rather see one of my favorite game franchises avoid, if at all possible. I say, as long as some of the staples are preserved (sword combat, heart containers, and that little "you found a secret!" chime. Just enough to remind you that, yes, this is a Zelda game) then by all means try s

To be honest, not much changed even with OoT. It was the same "mirror moving, fire-arrow switch activating" puzzles even in the earlier 2D Zeldas. OoT translated the gameplay so well into 3D that the series continued to be extremely popular.There shouldn't be any reason to change the style of game Zalda has always been, in fact Zelda-type games have, in a way, become a kind of genre all of it's own. As long as people keep enjoying the gameplay and Nintendo keeps the character's, stories and enviroments fres

Stories are stories, whether interactive or not. Some need to be refreshed over time to maintain value - others become timeless, only increasing in value with the fidelity with which they are told.

The Legend of Zelda series is not completely timeless, but most of it's aspects hold a very high value, even when they are not radically rehashed with each telling. It's a fairy tale where a boy with a sword rescues a princess, with some interesting action, oddness and strategy along the way.

No need to take away any of that when making a new Zelda game - you just have to make sure the core timelessness of the story isn't too overexposed, so that it doesn't become stale. No need to transform it into a guitar-based rock game with pinball elements or anything.

Final Fantasy introduces a totally new cast, setting and theme with each sequel and continues to please fans.

I'm pretty sure that's not a sequel as much as just reusing a trade mark for new games. There have been a couple of sequels notibly, X2 but for the most part each new FF game is just that and Not a sequel.

Not exactly a sequel, but not exactly a standalone game relying on the trademark.The first 3 Final fantasy games had incredibly similar feels (at least, the NES/Famicom versions did). They each had slight changes to the character sheet development, but the gameplay, quests, etc. were all very similar.

The next 3 games also had similar feels. They definitely drew on the first three, but they added a great deal of story and characterization, and of course, enhanced graphics (being on the next generation of c

I've played nearly every Zelda game ever made, just not the gameboy ones and that horrid skeleton in our closet on the CD-I. I've saved the eponymous princess countless times. And i can tell you that I do have sympathetic feelings for the writer of this article. This latest Zelda did feel "new" but nothing really TRULY surprised me like when I found out what the blue Ring did in the original Legend of Zelda. The sameness of elements in the game are beginning to not be interesting anymore, and that's truly a shame.
But you have to consider the consequences of "updating" Zelda. Could you even call a game part of the series if it doesn't pay tribute to its predecessors? Take out the Master Sword? Get rid of boomerangs and bombs? No more temples/dungeons/labyrinths? Why even have the main protagonist a green clad boy named Link? Make it a high-powered business woman set on mars. There we go. Change for change's sake.
What I'm trying to say is that Zelda has basically completely defined a whole genre of action/adventure/puzzle game. How many times have you heard the adjective "Zelda-like?" The game itself defines other games that copy its gameplay mechanics. We can't change that core of the game, that IS the game. If you are tired of exploring dungeons and getting items that give you new abilities, well stop playing this goddamn game then. (Also take a good hard look at all the other games you have to play too) And don't take out that tired line that they don't change the specific settings and elements. Zelda 2: the adventures of Link had nearly nothing in common with the first, and now the things it's introduced have become standard. Majora's Mask changed the way you played the game. And Wind Waker completely changed the setting and introduced new characters and items.
So piss off. Leave my game alone. I like knowing that in this world, this game will always have things that are the same. We all enjoy it. And the day we stop enjoying it and get tired of it I sure hope to hell they don't create a new edgier, flashier update called Shadow the Link where Link has a gun and a emo haircut.
When we get tired of elements of Zelda, we will be tired of Zelda itself and it will end

(have not yet RTFA, just responding to the summary)The funny thing is, even the jump from 2D to 3D was a lot less of a paradigm shift than with, say, Mario or Metroid...I kind of missed out on the original Zelda, but liked Zelda 2 a lot.My next games was Zelda:OoT. When after that i went back to the first game, I was amazed at how similar the dungeon puzzles etc felt!

Unlike Mario and Metroid, early Zelda was in a kind of 3/4 perspective, with a few light 3D-ish elements. So it's just not that big a shift. (

Yeah, the adventure of link is the game that you either love or hate. Me, I hate it, because there were already too many NES platformers, and the platformer section of the game SUCKED FUCKING ASS. I don't care if you liked that part, it had some of the worst play control ever seen in a platformer. I would play all the way through Faxanadu ten [more] times before I would pick up Zelda 2 again. BTW, it's never too late for the original Zelda; still a great game. Although you might give it a miss and jump righ

Final Fantasy games have made about as much change as any Zelda game has. One thing final fantasy has up on zelda is that it is a "new story" with "new characters" each time. The combat in Final Fantasy has been the same for ages much the same as zelda hasn't changed much. The only difference in combat has been gradual upgrades to the same battle system before it. Final Fantasy games have increasingly offered more character customization, but the same spells and summons are always used. Zelda games have add

boo to those who can't live past the "glory" of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

Bah. Everyone knows that "A Link to the Past" was the greatest Zelda game. Even though I thoroughly enjoy the 3D Zelda games, I'd love to see what a 3/4 isometric view could look like on modern hardware.

Yes in that there's only so many ways that you can kill Ganon and save the princess. And, as it so happens, Eiji Aonuma has said quite specifically that any further games in the series will be a substantial departure. (Personally, I'm hoping for a successor to Majora's Mask).No in that the fundamental mechanic - enter dungeon, get new item, solve puzzles with item, defeat boss, find stuff on overworld, get to next dungeon - is unlikely to ever get old. As long as the surrounding narrative and premise aren't

I think that Zelda games are indeed "formulaic," but it's a decent formula that really suffers not so much from repetition as from the fact that everything besides the gameplay gets so little attention. The stories in Zelda are extremely basic and weak, and do little more than tie one dungeon/temple to the next. That's not a big problem, but when you have that AND no voices AND old-school-midi-quality music in a title that was released just recently, it starts to feel like, well, *there can be more to it.*

Even improving two of those three things would do wonders for Zelda and it's feeling of being an "aging" series. An epic, cd-quality orchestral score for once? That shouldn't bee too much to ask, after all games like Battlefield and Medal of Honor get that privilege, not to even mention the blockbusters like Final Fantasy and Halo.

Zelda's core gameplay -- making one's way through cleverly designed dungeons -- is STILL its greatest strength! And far from what makes a Zelda game feel like it's "lacking" in something. The reason it feels a bit outdated is that in many OTHER respects it truly IS. While no-one has been able to match Zelda's level design, when it comes to other aspects of gameplay -- combat, NPC interaction, even boss design and horseback riding controls -- Nintendo's greatest really has been outdone. Ninja Gaiden, DMC3, God of War -- these games have put others to shame in terms of combat. Oblivion's NPCs (and even those in games like the new Godfather) are far superior in AI and interactivity to those in Twilight Princess. Boss design -- look to Shadow of the Colossus for a lesson in "epic battles."

The summary calls for an overhaul of the core gameplay. That I believe is a MISTAKE. It's all the other stuff, which is admittedly *minor* in comparison to the gameplay that sets Zelda apart from everything else, that needs to catch up by about 9 years.

Isn't this pretty much what Nintendo attempted w/ The Wind Waker? Not just the graphics--though those did seek to create a new level of emotional expression unseen in the previous games--but also the obsession w/ the sea and expansion of the world? That wasn't a massive overhaul, sure, but everyone cried foul and begged for another Ocarina-style game. Just a few years later, they got it. Make up your minds, critics.

1. Intro Scene - Make sure to contrast the menace and the hero, motivational, showcase some of the graphics2. Opening Scene - Ambiance, small village, child hero, innocent life.3. Strange Things - Make sure the motivation is there, encourage exploration4. Build-up - Make sure the exploration leads to a larger plot, explain main quest.5. Quest for Critical Items - E.g. Master sword, shield, etc. Include minor versions of dungeons.6. Start of Main Quest - Once hero is equipped, unleash the main goals7. Unleash Main Motif - Could be darkness (inverted worlds), modes of transportation, transformations, graphics or console unique engine etc. Make sure that Main motif is an intricate part of the game.8. Side Quests - Include plenty, make sure that you confuse the player by making him/her pursue items that may or may not have a definite usage to the main quest.9. Fake End Boss - Build the momentum with a fake sense of victory.10. Ending - Make it inspirational, but open... after all, this is another instance of the hero overcoming evil.

Ever since 'A Link to the Past' this has been the formula, and the Motif basically changes. The ALTP was reused in Link's awakening to a very good result (to me probably the best of the 2D Zeldas), however, Ocarina of Time introduced a new engine with the 3D Motif, but OOT (3D), MM (Masks) and WW (Art and Mode of transport) are to me the same game (I have yet to play Twilight as I can't find the time to commit to it), but from what I've seen there's the possibility of it being the same as the prior games with the new controls being the motif.

I love this series, but I must say that I'm more excited about Phantom Hourglass than I am about Twilight, just because the portable platform makes them deviate from the formula a bit (portables are played in bursts of time).

I think Zelda can have some good spinoffs, a 'Tactics' game comes to mind. I would also like to see a remake of "The Adventure of Link" in 2D with upgraded graphics (A la New SMB), who knows, maybe even a Paper Zelda version with the Flipping ability.

This is not meant to be critical, I like the formula, but I must say that I don't get as excited as I used to before.

Nintendo will never change the Zelda formula. They tested the waters with Windwaker and the fanbois all screamed bloody murder. Not over some major game mechanic change or dramatic change in roles of Link/Ganon/Zelda. No, they lit the torches and sharpened the pitchforks because of the ART DIRECTION.It's silly, of course. Yet, N is always redefining Mario. Donkey Kong was one type of game. Mario Bros. is another type of game. Super Mario Bros. 1 - 3 + World were essentially the same thing (not counting rebr

I've created a Slashdot account just to post this comment in a proper way. It really matters to me, because Zelda is one of those games that I grew up with and I've played every single iteration of it.

It is not true to say that there was not enough innovation going on in Twilight Princess (shape shifting, horse back fighting, cinematics). I like the game a lot. Having said this, Twilight Princess really made want to go back and play the original Legend of Zelda once again. Here are the reasons:

Exploratory gameplay: In early Zelda titles (mostly in Legend of Zelda and A Link to the Past), it is left up to the player to decide in which sequence to complete the game. Especially in the Twilight Princess this has been dropped in favour of having a proper storyline. Having a storyline is great, but only if it doesn't imply that "we need to put some big rocks over here, otherwise the player will advance too much". In the original Legend of Zelda, the only thing that kept you from moving around freely in the world (I'm simplifying things a bit), is that fact that you just didn't go to some regions because the enemies were too dangerous over there given your current skills. Current Zelda titles are lacking behing on this. In all titles after A Link to the Past, the map felt just very small. My recommendation: Make the map huge and allow the player to freely explore the world -- only limited by his own skills -- in a non-linear gameplay.

Sidequest nonsense: Newer Zelda titles have too many sidequest. In the original Legend of Zelda, I actually cared for finding all heart containers, but with the inflation of fractions of pieces of hearts in current games, it's just a pain. Things get worse when you have to find 100+ spiders or ghosts. It doesn't add to the game and the reward that you get out of these quests is never worth the effort. My recommendation: Integrate sidequest into the storyline and have one single meaningful artifact as reward.

Difficulty: Zelda has gotten too easy. Without even going through the pain of getting all bottles, I only died once before completing the game for the first time. Especially the dungeon bosses were too easy. So much for the combat, but it's also true for quests. In current games, you just always know where to place a bomb in a dungeon because it's really obvious from the looks of the wall. Solving riddles has come to the point of just doing the obvious. My recommendation: Make the game harder, both in terms of combat and in terms of riddles. Beating a strong opponent is it's own reward, just as working two hours on finding the correct way to solve a riddle is.

Lack of combat: Zelda has been shifting its focus from pure combat to RPG. This is OK. However, especially in recent titles, there is a distinct lack of good combat. This is partly due to the fact that in 3D, it's harder for the player to focus on multiple enemies at the same time. I assume that for this reason you never have to face more than two or three tough opponents at the same time in Twilight Princess (same in earlier 3D titles). My recommendation: Rework the user interface to allow for improved combat against multiple strong enemies; allow the player to use interesting strategies against them.

Don't reinvent the wheel: It's true that fans of the Zelda series don't want to see everything changed. So new items are always fine, but not too many. Instead, how about bringing back some items from the previous games: sword throwing, magic wand, rings, etc. Many of these old items or features can be reused in new and interesting ways on the Wii. Think Wii controller + magic wand. My recommendation: Only come up with new items, that are truely new. Reuse existing items (many of which still need to be adapted to 3D gameplay) where possible.

In the original Legend of Zelda, the only thing that kept you from moving around freely in the world (I'm simplifying things a bit), is that fact that you just didn't go to some regions because the enemies were too dangerous over there given your current skills.

Broadly true, although later dungeons had rooms that were impossible to get through unless you had the Ladder, which IIRC was found in a dungeon you needed the Raft to get to. You could play most of the dungeons a bit out of sequence, but it was ra

Whether or not the Zelda series needs an overhaul, Nintendo's licensing for the property needs an overhaul. This game has been out for months and I still can't buy a stuffed Midna doll? I would buy two, just so I can keep one at work.

Sorry if it has already been said, but this article sure has boiled my blood. It makes specific reference to final fantasy, a series i've long had a problem with in the naming department. The games are great, but Final Fantasy is 12 completely different games, all with the same name. When i buy a zelda game, i expect a zelda game. Not some completely irrelivant game with a similar name.

So would someone please tell my why they are encouraging this kind of behaviour?

No. Mirror moving and fire_activating puzzle are only stables of the game because those are the items you get in the game.Legend of Zelda Four Swords Adventure was one of the best games for me in recent years because of one thing, it really brought a new look at the old Zelda items. It increased the difficulty because it requested the player do things outside of the box at times.

What I think Zelda actually needs, is some difficulty, and a new set of items. The classics (bombs, fire arrows even the mirror

Wow, some people like something you don't like. I understand completely. Great reason to get that worked up about something.
Somebody needs lots of therapy. Or if thats not available a shovel to the back of the head should do.

I don't mind trolls. But when they are so tragically retarded it's just sad and pitiable. This is Slashdot; better work on your chops, buddy, and next time bring your A-Game. A weak troll like that will only generate ridicule outside of whatever AOL chatroom you fell out of. And posting AC? Well, you pretty much modded yourself. Sorry, thanks for playing.

Okay, that Okami comment is just wrong. You do realize that Twilight Princess began developement 2 full years before Okami was even concieved, don't you? And that screen shots of Wolf Link first surfaced long before we ever saw the face of Ameratsu?Okami was incredible, but the fact that both featured wolves was, believe it or not, a complete coincidence. If anything, Ameratsu was fashioned AFTER Wolf Link, but I highly doubt it, as I'm guessing that both games sat in the mind of their creators for a good c

Hell, this was the first Zelda game where I've ever given two-shits about the characters. Before, they were just an excuse for gameplay, now, I actually care about them.

One word: Marin.

At the point where I realised what would happen if I actually did wake the Wind Fish, I almost cried. At that point, the true hero should have sacrificed his hope of returning to Hyrule, thrown away his sword and gone and raised a family on the island. I should have stopped playing Zelda there and then and fired up Harves

People were going to think that the two projects were coincidentally similar? Or was he worried that people would think that Nintendo didn't rip him off? Unless he showed Okami to them sometime before Nintendo decided to put it in TP, I don't see where he'd have any convincing argument to say "Nintendo ripped me off".

To be fair, though, even if Miyamoto did take the wolf idea, it's sort of like Apple stealing a windows idea... seriously, I love Okami, but there was SO MUCH TAKEN FROM WIND WAKER, that it's really silly to call Miyamoto a thief in return.

Nope, fans will happily rescue the same fucking princess over and over again

Not always the same princess. Zelda's just a traditional name in the royal family of Hyrule. I make it at least four Zeldas through history. Ocarina Zelda, Twilight Princess Zelda, Link to the Past Zelda (who may or may not be the same Zelda as Sleeping Zelda), and Original Zelda.

I love Zelda games, so I hate to agree with this assessment. However, I noticed while playing Twilight Princess that I instinctively knew the answers to most puzzles and boss fights. Heck, I even walked into dungeons and started guessing the sort of obstacles I'd face and the sort of treasures I'd find based on familiar themes. I'm sure I can't be the only loyal fan suffering from Zelda deja vu.

I got a certain amount of that. Might have been because I'd replayed Ocarina during the month or so before the W